|
There's not gonna be very many people left if you get to execute everyone you want executed Jastiger. Who will be left to visit the beautiful Des Moines Farmer's Market or enjoy a delicious steak de burgo?
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:Prople wo reject science, besides being gullible and dumb as hell, certainly font understand what they distrust. I've never met a young earth creationist the genuinely understood evolution, or a climate change denier that genuinely understood what climate change means. Its always some half baked juvenile understanding of what someone somewhere at some time said, and they give more credence to that than actually picking up a book. I think mandatory re-education would be a more realistic short-term solution. They are more victims of the poor education system where they grew up than anything. A longer term solution for future generations would be to actually make teaching an attractive/lucrative career instead of something only the really really passionate people do, or a last resort for people who failed in their original career choice. There are great teachers all over the country, don't get me wrong, but they would be a lot more common if there was actually financial incentive to work in impoverished areas that is at least close to equal to whatever other industry/etc job they could otherwise get.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Jastiger's one of those dudes who would argue that we should just kill and neuter a bunch of people to fix overpopulation. Just not him, you know, because the world will need intellectuals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:Jastiger's one of those dudes who would argue that we should just kill and neuter a bunch of people to fix overpopulation. Just not him, you know, because the world will need intellectuals. He usually backs down though once pressed on it, like whenever he says he supports eugenics and people say that eugenics is bad it's always "I didn't mean that kind of eugenics".
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:He usually backs down though once pressed on it, like whenever he says he supports eugenics and people say that eugenics is bad it's always "I didn't mean that kind of eugenics". A good defense for any offensive comment. "Not that kind of Jew." "Not that kind of gay." "Not that kind of rape."
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:People take politics too seriously. I agree, but I live somewhere where the mainstream political framework doesn't really encompass such stark and fundamental differences like "pro life" vs. "pro choice". I have little interest in what political party my friends and family members belong to, but that is probably due to it being realistic to assume that we largely agree on basic rights re; the equality of gender, sexuality and race.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:I think mandatory re-education would be a more realistic short-term solution. They are more victims of the poor education system where they grew up than anything. A longer term solution for future generations would be to actually make teaching an attractive/lucrative career instead of something only the really really passionate people do, or a last resort for people who failed in their original career choice. There are great teachers all over the country, don't get me wrong, but they would be a lot more common if there was actually financial incentive to work in impoverished areas that is at least close to equal to whatever other industry/etc job they could otherwise get. This really the answer. We need to pay teachers in such a way that its attractive beyond "I get summers off". There are so many opportunities to fix these broken ideas but we just can't because we have this stupid "truth is in the middle" nonsense when it comes to facts. Combine that with the ridiculous "school choice" (Euphemism for religious indoctrination) and you have a recipe for a generation of ignorance. Solice Kirsk posted:There's not gonna be very many people left if you get to execute everyone you want executed Jastiger. Who will be left to visit the beautiful Des Moines Farmer's Market or enjoy a delicious steak de burgo? YOu shall be spared. Das Boo posted:Jastiger's one of those dudes who would argue that we should just kill and neuter a bunch of people to fix overpopulation. Just not him, you know, because the world will need intellectuals. No I was pretty clear during eugenics discussion what I meant, and most folks agreed with me. This is the equivalent of someone saying "LOL GLOBAL WARMING, IT JUST SNOWED YESTERDAY HYUCK" and pisses me off. Instead of nuanced discussion we look for buzzwords and quick answers. Sentence: Execution. But seriously all hyperbole aside a real PHUO that I think I've said several times before: Baby Boomers are legit the worst thing to happen to America and the world will be vastly, vastly improved when they are all gone. It won't be perfect, their damage will last for generations to come, but holy poo poo what a bunch of cunts that hosed things up for everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Make it easier to fire bad teachers and also raise the salary to attract more skilled teachers. The only way teachers get fired today is if they gently caress their students.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:
Maybe you're just a special intellectual onion, but when I read about folks wishing they could kill undesirables I'm often led to believe they would if they could do so without facing repercussions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Also anyone who thinks scientists are paid off to manufacture results that suit some political agenda has never met a scientist before. If there was actually juicy bribe/hush money regularly available, there would probably be a lot of takers and scientists as a whole wouldn't be so poorly dressed living in apartments that are barely nicer than what the college freshmen live in. And since science has to be peer-reviewed, you'd also have to pay off the rest of the community to pretend they don't see the inconsistencies or misleading conclusions and we'd all be rich. Plus there's the whole "ethics" side of it I guess, there has to be at least some out there that would whistleblow the whole thing after being offered their payoff. I think you're slightly misjudging the nature of scientific fraud, better known as scientific misconduct. Simple peer-review (when it's even employed, it's only a requirement for certain kinds of publishing) can't actually address faked data, misrepresented methodology, omitted results, etc. A reviewer can only address the quality of the work as it was reported and then sign off on it. It's difficult to catch someone red-handed even if you're suspicious of some results (assuming someone's bothering to devote time to an exact experimental reproduction) since the failure to exactly reproduce another's results is a modestly common phenomena, considering the impact of even slight variations in the experiment. This makes fraud a relatively easy thing to get away with. There aren't actually any official bodies that do spot-check inspections or assessments of an individual's procedure for the purposes of uncovering misconduct and issuing disciplinary actions (though some universities have their own legislature addressing misconduct and some countries like Denmark have a committee for this), it's generally up to the community to accept or reject findings based on the merits of the bodies of work surrounding the topic. Whistle-blowing is a bit harder when there's no appropriate authority to whistle blow to. Science is an expensive endeavor and some people use sponsors, sometimes corporate sponsors, to supplement grants for funding and so there's a class of misconduct that addresses results not getting published because they would be damaging for the sponsor. This is where politics can start coming in, especially if a social movement with some heft develops around a certain fabricated findings and now wants to change how something's regulated. All these kinds of misconduct are obviously a short-sighted things to involve yourself in since, like any other deception, they can eventually be discovered and truth does win in the end (misconducts are eventually discovered after all) but it's an important issue even within the more enlightened academic circles where there are still career/reputation/national pressures that cause some people to publish things that shouldn't be published to maintain their work output and remain competitive for stuff like grant money; supposedly 1 in 8 scientists in the UK has witnessed some kind research fraud and objectively hundreds of papers a year are retracted on the basis of some kind of data misrepresentation iirc. It's a considerable fringe issue. It can be even more gross in industries that rely on science for verification, ensuring good industry practices or establishing the effectiveness/safety of a product. Scandals like the Bre-x fiasco show there's motivation for companies use science to fake results in the hope that investors will pump money into a faltering company. While it's a kind of silly to assume all scientists manufacture results because of vested interests or for someone to hand-wave away findings they don't like as being definitely fraudulent (or a chinese hoax) or otherwise question well-established beliefs without further evidence,, this kind of stuff is definitely a thing that needs consideration instead of assuming that a scientist would never.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:This really the answer. We need to pay teachers in such a way that its attractive beyond "I get summers off". There are so many opportunities to fix these broken ideas but we just can't because we have this stupid "truth is in the middle" nonsense when it comes to facts. Combine that with the ridiculous "school choice" (Euphemism for religious indoctrination) and you have a recipe for a generation of ignorance. Sure, the civil war happened, but Jeff Davis had nothing on the average dude or lady born between 1945 and 1965!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
hard counter posted:I think you're slightly misjudging the nature of scientific fraud, better known as scientific misconduct. Simple peer-review (when it's even employed, it's only a requirement for certain kinds of publishing) can't actually address faked data, misrepresented methodology, omitted results, etc. This is a long post but really, the ONLY reputable journals in any field of science are peer reviewed. You can get published in ones that aren't, but they are NEVER cited by reputable scientists. Ever. If they do it was an accident. Faked data should still be revealed by detailed peer review. It never works perfectly but someone will probably try to replicate your results eventually and most of the time if your work actually means something to the field it will eventually be exposed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
All of this is yet more evidence that the government itself needs to have a very large hand in understanding, verifying, and publishing all scientific data.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:Maybe you're just a special intellectual onion, but when I read about folks wishing they could kill undesirables I'm often led to believe they would if they could do so without facing repercussions. Im being hyperbolic with the execution posts, but i didnt advocate that during eugenics chat. Das Boo you have misread me, my friend!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
People take Jastiger too seriously when he's obviously being over the top about pretty much anything he posts
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
That sounds like something only Riff Raff would do. I, for one, I am shocked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Aramek posted:That sounds like something only Riff Raff would do. The Riffest of Raff. There are people that are riff raff tho.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Aramek posted:All of this is yet more evidence that the government itself needs to have a very large hand in understanding, verifying, and publishing all scientific data. Only after a massive reform in who gets to be in charge of science policy in the government. The current government grant system only rewards the people who know the current year's buzzwords when they write their proposals, there is very little thought given to scientific merit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Thunder Road is the best Springsteen song. It is also a top 5 all time American rock song
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Shangri-Law School posted:Frank Gehry should not be allowed to design any more buildings. Also Zaha Hadid or any architect who's amazing vision is always "Ok it's a big cube I drew in 3d max but then I warped it into a weird shape!!!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Low Desert Punk posted:Thunder Road is the best Springsteen song. It is also a top 5 all time American rock song Ok. It's not like you picked something from Human Touch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:People take Jastiger too seriously when he's obviously being over the top about pretty much anything he posts Dude, "Kill [x] group for thing I don't like!" is Poe's Law as hell anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:Dude, "Kill [x] group for thing I don't like!" is Poe's Law as hell anymore. Yeah but I mean, Jastiger is a pretty well known factor and he's been so tongue in cheek and/or trolling for so long it kind of blows my mind people still fall for it
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Well the issue I take is real. The execute comments arent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:This is a long post but really, the ONLY reputable journals in any field of science are peer reviewed. You can get published in ones that aren't, but they are NEVER cited by reputable scientists. Ever. If they do it was an accident. Faked data should still be revealed by detailed peer review. It never works perfectly but someone will probably try to replicate your results eventually and most of the time if your work actually means something to the field it will eventually be exposed. Not all science is the kind that goes in journals though, there are laboratories involved in routine analysis and the like that do scientific work directly for clients/governments or otherwise take on some kind of contract work. That stuff does not get peer reviewed though they are used to establish a variety of scientifically backed claims, such as the cleanliness of a mine's water outflow or whatever, these laboratories only go through audits every few years to ensure good laboratory practices. These audits, in fact, do tend to reveal lapses in methodology from time to time, like when a company claims its using a certain procedure for its clients but then it's not when you check their actual practices. Often it's lapses like using cheaper, lower grade materials rather than the ultra-pure materials both promised via contract and required for certain kinds of precision analysis. I know because I worked in this area briefly and the only repercussions a company faces is having to once again prove it can do what it originally promised before getting re-accredited. I haven't seen first hand what happens when a major breach in scientific conduct occurs tho. When scientists involved in more academic fields are revealed to have engaged in flagrantly fraudulent research what ends up happening is that the rest of their works comes under much more scrutiny. The scrutiny ends up revealing potentially decades of misconduct and every year there's a dozen or so career-ruining scandals of this caliber in the west where even the degrees issued their grad students come under question. Peer review can't address all these issues, attempting to do follow-ups to reproduce an experiment can't even address it perfectly given plausible experimental variation and background noise plausibly producing a false signal in less flagrant cases. You still get dudes like Joachim Boldt who blatantly forged results for years before people clued in. I agree that in most cases significant fraud will eventually be exposed and that it's an intensely stupid thing for a person to get involved in but people, however well-educated, can be intensely stupid. It's enough of an issue that books have been written on this subject.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
The Ghost in the Shell comic is better than the movie
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
science is dumb Eggs are good for you, no there not. ALso dinosaurs are dumb lizads no wait their birbs,,, Hur dur we cant replicate poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Science is good, but the people who report on scientific progress in public media need to be slapped around the head. We found a side effect of X that in some test subjects appear to have a inhibiting effect on the growth of certain cancer cells. It's probably a coincidence, but we've applied for a grant to research it further. X CURES CANCER, SCIENTISTS CONFIRM!
Collateral Damage has a new favorite as of 08:28 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Science is good, but the people who report on scientific progress in public media need to be slapped around the head. I've only had to deal with a press release writer once, and even the more intelligent ones (this was from NASA) are very frustrating to deal with. You give them a carefully thought out couple sentence summary for them to quote, but they will basically reword the entire thing to be "more exciting". When they sent the final draft to us my quotes weren't even anything I ever said but  , close enough.They think sensationalizing it will get more people in the general public interested, which is true to an extent, but they always overdo it which frustrates the public when they hear about all these revolutionary findings that inevitably fizzle out into little/nothing that the articles promised.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
2014: Jogging is useless. You need to do high intensity interval training! Short bursts of 10 minutes is the same as jogging for an hour! 2017: Jogging is actually good. One hour of jogging extends your life by 7 hours.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
Aramek posted:All of this is yet more evidence that the government itself needs to have a very large hand in understanding, verifying, and publishing all scientific data. Which government?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:They think sensationalizing it will get more people in the general public interested, which is true to an extent, but they always overdo it which frustrates the public when they hear about all these revolutionary findings that inevitably fizzle out into little/nothing that the articles promised.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 09:11
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:The first hurdle is just getting anyone to report on it at all. It doesn't matter if people would actually be interested in less sensational reports, because less sensational stuff won't even make it to the news. It's impossible to report on everything, so they pick whatever sounds most interesting and important, and that forces the people who write press releases to make them sound as interesting and important as possible. Well, yes, that's why I focused on the ones who overdo it (which is almost all of them). There's a large difference between giving the "big picture" summary of a paper in layman's terms and deliberately misrepresenting the importance of the findings just to make it sound cooler. The clickbait-style headlines and sensationalized wording isn't a problem as long as they honestly report the results including relevant caveats, but unfortunately they often don't and portray the study as the end product that has finally solved whatever the subject it's about, rather than being the incremental step that almost all science papers are. There's nothing wrong with admitting that while this may have been a big step, there is still a ton of future work that needs to be done, people will still read it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:2014: Jogging is useless. You need to do high intensity interval training! Short bursts of 10 minutes is the same as jogging for an hour! The waffling in regards to pregnancy and childcare is astounding.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 09:25
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:The waffling in regards to pregnancy and childcare is astounding. They're bad
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
I don't know why people don't like Iron Fist. I thought it was pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Which government? And who in whatever government you choose is actually qualified to do all that? You'd just have to hire real scientists to do it, so it would just be a more bureaucratic and inefficient version of the current peer review process. It would be nice if the government published the journals with public money though (and made them all open access). I still think it's ridiculous that I have to pay something like 2000-4000 dollars to publish an article in (one of) the top journal in my field. It's covered by my employer of course, but I think the current academic publishing system is way too insular because of the paywall that keeps most non-academia people from both reading and publishing and should be revamped. Of course in most cases a random guy at home isn't likely to produce work that is publishable whether it's due to lack of education or lack of research/computing resources, but still, if you read enough of the literature there are plenty of worthwhile papers that can be/are written just with public data and your PC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 09:51
|
|
|
Pet ownership is pathetic. The culture of pets and animal husbandry is disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 11:21
|
|
|
Choom Gangster posted:Pet ownership is pathetic. The culture of pets and animal husbandry is disgusting. After having pets basically my whole life I've come to almost the same conclusion. Dogs and cats seem to be so bred to be around us I don't think it's as bad, but I'd like to see dog and cat ownership fade away. Reptiles I've got no experience with, fish seem brainless but I don't know, but I really wish people wouldn't keep birds
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
It should be illegal to keep birds in cages. It's no different than keeping a dog chained up. Anything smaller than a 5m x 5m aviary is straight up wrong and even that size is pushing it. As far as household pets being or going away, I definitely feel like it's something we'll be re-examining in the next few decades. We're still riding out the long tail of the agrarian lifestyle, where dogs & cats were important tools for farming.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 11:48
|
|
